The Russia-Ukraine war is closing in on its sixth month, and yet there seems to be no end in sight. President Vladimir Putin has recently expressed his desire to end the war before 2023, but it is unclear exactly what he hopes to achieve between now and then.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has maintained the Kremlin’s official stance – that, its aim remains to overthrow President Volodymyr Zelensky and install a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. However, it has now become evidently clear that this hope, which at one point seemed like a real possibility, might be beyond reach.
Ukraine was able to effectively repel Russian advances in the initial stages of the war, mostly due to western supplied intelligence and anti-tank Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW) missiles. And they will be met with the same force if they choose to attack the centre again. But Moscow seems to have realised that, which is why they have tapered their expectations, and redirected their efforts on the eastern region of Donbas and the southern cities of Kherson and Odessa. For now, regime change no longer seems to be the top priority.
On the southern front, the war effort is zoned in on Kherson currently controlled by Russia. Ukraine made their intentions clear to retake the city late last month, when it launched a series of rocket attacks on the Antonivka bridge, a key crossing point over the Dnieper River. Reports emerging from the region suggest that the bridge has sustained considerable damage and is unusable for crossing by heavy machinery, making it harder for Russia to maintain supply lines.
For Russia, control over Kherson carries strategic importance as it would allow them to connect Crimea with mainland Ukraine, and possibly with the breakaway region of Transnistria in Moldova, which has a heavy Russian military presence. It would allow Vladimir Putin to expand the area under annexation, gain control over key Black Sea ports and establish ties in the region, which will be critical if he was to relaunch an offensive towards Kyiv in the future.
Zelensky understands the importance of the city and will prevent Russia from consolidating control no matter the cost. The battle over Kherson has taken on even greater significance as the city allows access to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which, under normal times, supplies one-fifth of Ukraine’s electricity. It is also the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and the ninth largest in the world. Without regaining control over the Antonivka bridge, which carries the M19 Highway, Ukraine will continue to be locked out of the plant, unable to carry out critical maintenance work. The plant, which is currently running only one of its six units, will almost certainly be shut down. A previous report of shelling and fire at the plant sent the Asian financial markets plummeting. But thankfully so far, there have been no reports of radiation leakage.
The rocket attacks by Ukraine last month on the Antonivka bridge were launched using the US-provided Himars rocket launchers. If Ukraine was to launch a full-blown counteroffensive, it will need more of these, which the US has agreed to supply. On top of that, Turkey is shipping over their advanced Bayraktar TB2 unmanned drones, which brings the crossover of precision air-striking and stealth to a whole other level. To Turkey, it has given a diplomatic edge, which was further bolstered by the mediatory role it played in negotiating a settlement between Russia and Ukraine last month to unblock the shipment of grain exports through the Black Sea ports. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, overseeing a battered Turkish economy, needs every bit of foreign support he can get.
Which brings us to the western alliance. It goes without saying that Ukraine would not have been in a position to defend itself without western military aid and weapons. But NATO, and particularly the US, should reconsider their stance and the extent of their support from a less ideological and a more strategic angle. Joe Biden has made it clear that the US troops will not fight in Ukraine, but it is unclear where he draws the line between direct conflict and strategic support. No matter what Biden says, the US is engaged in a war with Russia, albeit through a proxy, which is the overarching nature of modern warfare.
It is unlikely that the US will funnel another $54 billion in aid to Ukraine. But if they continue to buff up Ukraine’s military muscle and push Putin on the back foot, they risk serious escalation. Putin does not wish to give an inch, evidenced by the fact that he has redirected forces from Syria, as well as Donbas, towards the south. Enough has already been written about NATO’s blunders leading up to this war. In order not to repeat the same mistakes, the West cannot continue to finance a dangerous war, without the possibility of a negotiated settlement in the future.
Sanctions have clearly not worked. Russia is making the same revenue from the sale of less, but more expensive, oil and gas, while the European Union is discussing rationing gas to stave off a cold and dark winter. Russian trade has taken a hit but not enough to push Putin to the negotiating table. The only way to bring an end to this war is hardcore diplomacy, which will require international effort, and a targeted and leading approach from the US.
The same approach was used to force Iran to sign a nuclear deal in 2015. It can be done again. But with its inherent risks and catastrophic impact on the global economy, this war must be brought to a negotiated end sooner rather than later.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has maintained the Kremlin’s official stance – that, its aim remains to overthrow President Volodymyr Zelensky and install a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. However, it has now become evidently clear that this hope, which at one point seemed like a real possibility, might be beyond reach.
Ukraine was able to effectively repel Russian advances in the initial stages of the war, mostly due to western supplied intelligence and anti-tank Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW) missiles. And they will be met with the same force if they choose to attack the centre again. But Moscow seems to have realised that, which is why they have tapered their expectations, and redirected their efforts on the eastern region of Donbas and the southern cities of Kherson and Odessa. For now, regime change no longer seems to be the top priority.
On the southern front, the war effort is zoned in on Kherson currently controlled by Russia. Ukraine made their intentions clear to retake the city late last month, when it launched a series of rocket attacks on the Antonivka bridge, a key crossing point over the Dnieper River. Reports emerging from the region suggest that the bridge has sustained considerable damage and is unusable for crossing by heavy machinery, making it harder for Russia to maintain supply lines.
For Russia, control over Kherson carries strategic importance as it would allow them to connect Crimea with mainland Ukraine, and possibly with the breakaway region of Transnistria in Moldova, which has a heavy Russian military presence.
For Russia, control over Kherson carries strategic importance as it would allow them to connect Crimea with mainland Ukraine, and possibly with the breakaway region of Transnistria in Moldova, which has a heavy Russian military presence. It would allow Vladimir Putin to expand the area under annexation, gain control over key Black Sea ports and establish ties in the region, which will be critical if he was to relaunch an offensive towards Kyiv in the future.
Zelensky understands the importance of the city and will prevent Russia from consolidating control no matter the cost. The battle over Kherson has taken on even greater significance as the city allows access to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which, under normal times, supplies one-fifth of Ukraine’s electricity. It is also the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and the ninth largest in the world. Without regaining control over the Antonivka bridge, which carries the M19 Highway, Ukraine will continue to be locked out of the plant, unable to carry out critical maintenance work. The plant, which is currently running only one of its six units, will almost certainly be shut down. A previous report of shelling and fire at the plant sent the Asian financial markets plummeting. But thankfully so far, there have been no reports of radiation leakage.
The rocket attacks by Ukraine last month on the Antonivka bridge were launched using the US-provided Himars rocket launchers. If Ukraine was to launch a full-blown counteroffensive, it will need more of these, which the US has agreed to supply. On top of that, Turkey is shipping over their advanced Bayraktar TB2 unmanned drones, which brings the crossover of precision air-striking and stealth to a whole other level. To Turkey, it has given a diplomatic edge, which was further bolstered by the mediatory role it played in negotiating a settlement between Russia and Ukraine last month to unblock the shipment of grain exports through the Black Sea ports. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, overseeing a battered Turkish economy, needs every bit of foreign support he can get.
Which brings us to the western alliance. It goes without saying that Ukraine would not have been in a position to defend itself without western military aid and weapons. But NATO, and particularly the US, should reconsider their stance and the extent of their support from a less ideological and a more strategic angle. Joe Biden has made it clear that the US troops will not fight in Ukraine, but it is unclear where he draws the line between direct conflict and strategic support. No matter what Biden says, the US is engaged in a war with Russia, albeit through a proxy, which is the overarching nature of modern warfare.
Sanctions have clearly not worked. Russia is making the same revenue from the sale of less, but more expensive, oil and gas, while the European Union is discussing rationing gas to stave off a cold and dark winter.
It is unlikely that the US will funnel another $54 billion in aid to Ukraine. But if they continue to buff up Ukraine’s military muscle and push Putin on the back foot, they risk serious escalation. Putin does not wish to give an inch, evidenced by the fact that he has redirected forces from Syria, as well as Donbas, towards the south. Enough has already been written about NATO’s blunders leading up to this war. In order not to repeat the same mistakes, the West cannot continue to finance a dangerous war, without the possibility of a negotiated settlement in the future.
Sanctions have clearly not worked. Russia is making the same revenue from the sale of less, but more expensive, oil and gas, while the European Union is discussing rationing gas to stave off a cold and dark winter. Russian trade has taken a hit but not enough to push Putin to the negotiating table. The only way to bring an end to this war is hardcore diplomacy, which will require international effort, and a targeted and leading approach from the US.
The same approach was used to force Iran to sign a nuclear deal in 2015. It can be done again. But with its inherent risks and catastrophic impact on the global economy, this war must be brought to a negotiated end sooner rather than later.